- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would it be constitutional for a state to promote natural marriage?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:09 am
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:09 am
Now that egalitarianism is sweeping the nation and anybody will soon be able to "marry" their monkey's uncle, thus essentially making the term "marriage" meaningless, would state passed legislation promoting natural marriage violate the 14th?
For example, could at state offer tax credits to natural marriage couples to incentivize or promote this from of marriage without violating he 14th (because the legislature of said state views natural marriage as a legitimate state interest)?
For example, could at state offer tax credits to natural marriage couples to incentivize or promote this from of marriage without violating he 14th (because the legislature of said state views natural marriage as a legitimate state interest)?
11
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:15 am to GumboPot
At that point you would likely need a compelling state interest, so probably not.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:25 am to Joshjrn
I'm asking this hypo based on this state judge's recent ruling in this case where he said “family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest.”
The compelling state interest would be determined by the legislature. The state legislature wouldn't be taking marriage away, only promoting a particular type (natural marriage).
The compelling state interest would be determined by the legislature. The state legislature wouldn't be taking marriage away, only promoting a particular type (natural marriage).
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:28 am to GumboPot
Is "natural marriage" a new term?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:34 am to Paluka
quote:
Is "natural marriage" a new term?
Good question. IDK. I just went with it because that was the term used in the article I linked above.
I suppose it's just a reaction to the term "marriage" becoming ambiguous.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:36 am to GumboPot
quote:Willful ignorance. No need to read past this.
Now that egalitarianism is sweeping the nation and anybody will soon be able to "marry" their monkey's uncle
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:38 am to ballscaster
quote:
Willful ignorance. No need to read past this.
Don't be so sensitive. I was just looking for an opportunity to use the term "monkey's uncle".
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:39 am to GumboPot
quote:
could at state offer tax credits to natural marriage couples to incentivize
I'm going to go with a big negatory there.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:39 am to GumboPot
I accused you of willful ignorance. That was insensitive of me.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:42 am to GumboPot
stuff like this is why the state should stay out of marriage. Leave it to the churches.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:44 am to GumboPot
What would be the net effect of passing such a law? Are you arguing that tax credits and financial incentives might sway some gays out of the "lifestyle" and into hetero marriages based on the money?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:44 am to Jcorye1
quote:
I'm going to go with a big negatory there.
But it's okay for state's to incentivize other behaviors, intuitions, businesses, etc. based on local, state and/or federally implemented carrot or stick legislation. Why should a particular type of marriage be any different? What makes marriage special that different types of marriage cannot be quelled and/or promoted?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:45 am to ballscaster
quote:
I accused you of willful ignorance. That was insensitive of me.
No. Not reading further.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:46 am to GumboPot
WTF is "natural marriage"?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:48 am to Rex
quote:
WTF is "natural marriage"?
Hetero marriage.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:48 am to GumboPot
quote:
But it's okay for state's to incentivize other behaviors, intuitions, businesses, etc. based on local, state and/or federally implemented carrot or stick legislation. Why should a particular type of marriage be any different? What makes marriage special that different types of marriage cannot be quelled and/or promoted?
So what is the likely effect? Is this a law that will actually accomplish it's intended effect, or is it just a way to put a stamp on a certain kind of marriage and call it better?
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:49 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
stuff like this is why the state should stay out of marriage. Leave it to the churches.
I agree.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:54 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
So what is the likely effect?
Promoting the state's interest as determined by its legislature.
The example I used here; a state that offers a tax credits to natural marriages would likely get an influx of naturally married working couples.
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 8:55 am
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:06 am to GumboPot
quote:
But it's okay for state's to incentivize other behaviors, intuitions, businesses, etc. based on local, state and/or federally implemented carrot or stick legislation. Why should a particular type of marriage be any different? What makes marriage special that different types of marriage cannot be quelled and/or promoted?
Just so I'm clear with this, you want a tax credit because a man marries a woman, and then you see no issue with that.
Hell, if you really want to debate, homosexuals have higher wages and save more per multiple studies. Maybe we should incentivize that :D
Posted on 8/20/14 at 9:07 am to GumboPot
quote:
The example I used here; a state that offers a tax credits to natural marriages would likely get an influx of naturally married working couples.
This post was edited on 8/20 at 8:55 am
As the law stands right now, I think it would be a toss up at the Supreme Court level of each state. Only the 2nd Circuit has determined that gays are an intermediate scrutiny class. It would probably fail in those states. I think it would probably survive rational basis in a lot of other places, for now.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News